Armory Sponsor
Posted: 4/11/2012 4:04:00 PM EDT
| I am not trying to start an argument or a debate on what is the best 308 mbr. I posted in a different thread about an m1a being current and viable battle rifle and want to get some opinions from a wider audience. I own an m1a and dropped it in a vltor stock and I love it! However, I would like to know whether or not you believe the M1A/m14 is a viable and "modern enough" battle rifle. Do you feel the design is good and works great on todays battle fields? Maybe the design is great but since it lost favor so quick to the m16 (because the m14 was not cut out for close in jungle fighting) it never had the chance to evolve like military rifles do? Or do you feel that more modern designs (AR platforms, SCAR, etc) are just better all around? Just curious to see what people think. |
|
Quoted:
It's a fine rifle, but there are more modern and versatile options available these days. I love mine. But the core of the design dates back to the 1930's. This. An M14 (or M1 that started out using BAR mags) would have been the premier rifle of WW2 in virtually every respect...as it was, the M14 was already an aging design when it was brand-new. It'll still launch bullets just fine on the range, but for "serious use," there are much better choices out there, and have been for a while. |
| It is always nice to have the right tool for the job (battle invironment)... Carbines are nice for close in work (urban/jungles), but in open country/dirty places I'd put more faith in my M1A.. Maybe I am a little predjudiced because I had permanent stoppages in a couple of firefights with the M16.. all you have is a club if it doesn't go bang reliably. I don't know if the next big battlefield will be like today's (find the bad guys with high tech electronics & call in artilllary/ air support & blow them appart with a couple million $ worth of ordinance!). For stand off fighting without those things, I think that I would rather have a few guys with M1As against a few guys with ARs. or the latest & greatest... Sometimes "Old", but tried & true is not a bad thing! |
|
Quoted:
It is always nice to have the right tool for the job (battle invironment)... Carbines are nice for close in work (urban/jungles), but in open country/dirty places I'd put more faith in my M1A.. Maybe I am a little predjudiced because I had permanent stoppages in a couple of firefights with the M16.. all you have is a club if it doesn't go bang reliably. I don't know if the next big battlefield will be like today's (find the bad guys with high tech electronics & call in artilllary/ air support & blow them appart with a couple million $ worth of ordinance!). For stand off fighting without those things, I think that I would rather have a few guys with M1As against a few guys with ARs. or the latest & greatest... Sometimes "Old", but tried & true is not a bad thing! But it seems a lot of what you're talking about are the advantages of 7.62 vs 5.56, more than M14/M1A vs M4/M16. I realize a lot of units, including my own, only had the M14 vs M4/M16 choice early in these wars, but those days have past. The M14s are left behind by everyone I know who has the option of carrying something else ALSO IN 7.62, such as the SCAR H, M110, etc. |
|
Quoted: TAP, honest question on this. What semi platforms might you be thinking for the modern 7.62 x 51. AR? SCAR H? FAL? G3?It's a fine, fun, classic firearm. But every thing it does, another more modern semi 7.62x51 can do better now. There's nothing wrong with it- it's just not the most capable choice in any arena now. I've never had the chance to fire a precision or regular AR in 7.62 or a SCAR. Owned some good FALs (DSA) and a G3 clone over the years but have since sold them. Still shoot M1As in both a match configuration and in a SOCOM 16. Was very pleasantly surprised by the SOCOM 16 in terms of ergonomics, shooting on the move, and controlling the weapon. Mag changes were definitely a challenge vs an AR. Thinking about slapping an Aimpoint T1 on it even though the irons work well. To your point, fun gun, but time behind an AR and its ergonomics were far superior if I was moving around fast. Love my M1a as a match rifle though. Still a sucker for the M1907 sling and the ritual of high power. I guess I am answering my own question, but just curious of your thoughts on other platforms for semi 7.62 x 51s. ETA: Above post answers it. Gotta love the ARF. |
|
I have always liked the M14, but I think its usefulness could be greatly expanded if it evolved a little like the M16 platform did.
A reciever like this from LRB that is purpose built for optics would go a long way. A modern synthetic stock of some kind built with precision and rigidity for drop-in decent accuracy wouldn't hurt either. 
|
|
Quoted: I have always liked the M14, but I think its usefulness could be greatly expanded if it evolved a little like the M16 platform did. A reciever like this from LRB that is purpose built for optics would go a long way. A modern synthetic stock of some kind built with precision and rigidity for drop-in decent accuracy wouldn't hurt either. http://www.lrbarms.com/images/831_M25_without_rail.JPG WANT.  |
| The problem is that nobody has built anything that is leaps and bounds better for a comparable price. All of the rifles mentioned- AK, G3, M1(a), FN FAL, AR10 are all products essentially of the same era within a decade! Guess what? It's been FIFTY YEARS and MORE since those guns were designed! There are a very limited number of truly NEW and innovative designs––- Is the FN SCAR H a better platform? Arguably it is, certainly has more modern features......it's also TWICE what a good M1a costs. Is it TWICE as good? Arguably not. |
|
TAP, we are just looking at this from vastly different positions...
You are apparently still current military looking at it from what the US .gov should provide you, i.e the latest & greatest & I am totally OK with that! I was in the same position in 1965, but the latest & greatest had a few short comings that resulted in some friends of mine dieing.. Maybe the good points of the newer platform sved some lives too- maybe a wash.. At this point though, I am looking at a MBR from totally different perspective.. that is if I need to rely on one in the future.. that includes not only a tried & true platform, but also more likely finding spare parts & mags. to keep it running- not to mention that it has great iron sights when all the optics & electronics eventually dump... Thanks for your service- from an OLD Ia Drang Trooper.. Quoted:
Quoted:
It is always nice to have the right tool for the job (battle invironment)... Carbines are nice for close in work (urban/jungles), but in open country/dirty places I'd put more faith in my M1A.. Maybe I am a little predjudiced because I had permanent stoppages in a couple of firefights with the M16.. all you have is a club if it doesn't go bang reliably. I don't know if the next big battlefield will be like today's (find the bad guys with high tech electronics & call in artilllary/ air support & blow them appart with a couple million $ worth of ordinance!). For stand off fighting without those things, I think that I would rather have a few guys with M1As against a few guys with ARs. or the latest & greatest... Sometimes "Old", but tried & true is not a bad thing! But it seems a lot of what you're talking about are the advantages of 7.62 vs 5.56, more than M14/M1A vs M4/M16. I realize a lot of units, including my own, only had the M14 vs M4/M16 choice early in these wars, but those days have past. The M14s are left behind by everyone I know who has the option of carrying something else ALSO IN 7.62, such as the SCAR H, M110, etc. |
|
I think we might need to define some terms here, as well. What is "outdated"? Are we talking for front-line military use? Because in that case the M14 is absolutely outdated. And the stock/accessory solutions that exist to bring the design up-to-date are extremely clunky.
It works, yes, but Afghani's still use Enfields because they "work". As a regular civilian gun, or for ARFCOM's favourite fantasy "SHTF" situations, the M14 is perfectly adequate. It is reliable, fairly accurate, and shoots a good sized round. |
|
Quoted:
The problem is that nobody has built anything that is leaps and bounds better for a comparable price. All of the rifles mentioned- AK, G3, M1(a), FN FAL, AR10 are all products essentially of the same era within a decade! Guess what? It's been FIFTY YEARS and MORE since those guns were designed! There are a very limited number of truly NEW and innovative designs––- Is the FN SCAR H a better platform? Arguably it is, certainly has more modern features......it's also TWICE what a good M1a costs. Is it TWICE as good? Arguably not. This is my method of thinking as well. The latest and greatest that has been developed over the past 10 years is awesome stuff but at the end of the day it performs the same task with a little bit better maintenace and ergos. For a civilian 1500 extra is a lot of cheddar for better ergos and easier access to clean the gun. Would I love a SCAR H most definitely. Would or will I ever have 3000 to lay down on one gun up front, right away, probably not. |
|
In the civilian market, I don't think you can find a better semi-auto .308 for the price than an M1A. The FAL and G3 clones don't seem as easily upgradeable. There are some good .308 AR's...but a lot of the RRA's and Armalites seem to have some issues. The AR10 clones than run best cost about twice what an M1A will cost, and IMO, is not worth the extra cost. So no, on the civilian side, where money is an issue for most of us, I don't think its an outdated platform. |
|
.308 ar's are the newest thing.
5 years ago the standard redneck gawked at the price of a plain SA M1A (after asking what caliber it was). Now the same standard rednecks are very very interest in a .308 AR and they even know how long DPMS backorder is. It baffles me to tears. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: It's a fine rifle, but there are more modern and versatile options available these days. I love mine. But the core of the design dates back to the 1930's. This. An M14 (or M1 that started out using BAR mags) would have been the premier rifle of WW2 in virtually every respect...as it was, the M14 was already an aging design when it was brand-new. It'll still launch bullets just fine on the range, but for "serious use," there are much better choices out there, and have been for a while. Even without the magazines it was still the premier common issue of any army in WWII. |
Armory Sponsor